Landlady told Tusla that couple locked up child

A COUPLE who sued their former landlady for defamation after she told social workers they were locking their autistic child in the hot press have lost their case in the High Court.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Anthony Barr said while the allegation was untrue, he was satisfied that the landlady had made it in good faith.

The family (known as RP and JP), who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had rented a home from the landlady (known as Mrs K) for one year in January 2014, but later extended the lease for a further six months.

They made a complaint to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) after the defendant refused to return their €1,500 deposit. It later emerged that the defendant reported the family to Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, regarding concerns she had over their autistic child, claiming she feared he was subjected to violence because of damage done to the house and a vent being put in a hot press.

However, in his ruling last Tuesday, Judge Barr concluded that while the statements made by Mrs K to social workers were defamatory, the defendant was entitled to rely on the defence of qualified privilege as she had acted honestly and in good faith.

The family rented the home from the defendant from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 after the defendant, Mrs K, and her husband moved back home from abroad.

However, a dispute arose between both parties over the €1,500 security deposit. A ruling by the RTB, then the Private Residential Tenancies Board, on September 22, 2015 found the damage to the property was €1,800 and the defendant was entitled to keep the deposit.

However, the court heard, unknown to the plaintiffs, their landlady reported them to the HSE and the Early Intervention Team.

The defendant claimed there was damage done to the doors and furniture in the house and that a vent had been inserted into the door of the hot press for no apparent reason. The landlady also claimed she had concerns for the couple’s young autistic child and believed he was being locked in the hot press for disciplinary purposes.

On September 23, 2015, the plaintiffs were contacted by Tusla, which requested they come in to see them the following Friday.

The plaintiffs went into Tusla on the Thursday and were informed that an anonymous allegation had been made against them claiming their children were exposed to violence. The family said they were ‘shocked and distressed’ by the claims against them. An investigation was carried out by Tusla which, the court heard, caused great distress to the plaintiffs.

Three weeks later, Tusla confirmed that, having investigated the complaint and spoken to the child’s school principal, as well as a GP, there was no case to answer and the case was closed.

The plaintiffs later appealed the decision by the PRTB and a hearing was held before a tribunal.

The PRTB found that the plaintiffs owed €250 to the landlady in respect of a gas bill and €481 for damage to the property.

The defendants had to return the balance of the deposit.

The plaintiffs took a defamation case against their landlady claiming that the allegation to the HSE and the Early Intervention Team was out of malice by her.

Under cross-examination, one of the plaintiffs, Mrs P, accepted there was damage done to the lock on the main upstairs bedroom door.

She stated the damage was done by her son after he accidentally locked himself into the bedroom.

She claimed the vent had been put into the hot press by her husband because little air was getting into the cupboard and this was causing a smell.

The plaintiff said the landlady had called to the house to inspect the property regularly and never complained of any problems.

She told the court it was absurd that the child would be locked into a hot press when there was no lock on the door.

She also said that she and her husband kept the house very clean and fixed a leaking toilet.

In his judgement, Judge Barr concluded he was satisfied the landlady had informed Tusla that she had no evidence of abuse and that there was an ongoing dispute over a security deposit. He also accepted evidence from the defendant’s doctor, who stated that his patient did not want to report the matter but that he had encouraged her that she had a moral duty to do so.

Judge Barr said the statements made by the defendant were defamatory but rejected that this was done out of malice.

He emphasised that the plaintiffs had been found to be very good parents and that they only failed in their action due to the fact that the law allows protection to those who make reports due to genuine concerns for the safety and welfare of children. The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ action.

Family ‘shocked and distressed’